Some observations towards improved predictive models for box compression strength
Source abstract
Abstract
A McKee-Urbanik type equation for box compression testing (BCT) strength prediction was evaluated using the box data of McKee, Gander, and Wachuta and the tube strength data of Batelka and Smith. Instead of separating BCT into separate panel loads, an effective width was deemed adequate for the data set. Although not much can be done to improve the fit of the McKee data over the McKee formula, the fit of the tube data was slightly better than previously reported in the literature. Unlike previous literature, the fitting parameters used in the model directly target the uncertainty we have in predicting a critical buckling load for a panel (K = edge restraint, κ = twisting resistance, α = relative scaling). The lack of ability to improve the McKee data set is attributed to the variety of boxes tested and the dependence of BCT on unmeasured properties. The century-old take-home message reiterated in this paper is that focused research is needed to replace estimated or fitted parameters with independently measured quantities, which should result in a decrease in the number of boxes with unsatisfactory predictions of BCT.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Material Properties and Processing · Electronic Packaging and Soldering Technologies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (23)
Show source-provided references
1. Interstate Commerce Commission, 28th Annual Report of the Interstate Commerce Commission, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1 December 1914, Part I, p. 130. Available [Online] https://archive.org/details/annualreportofin28unit <13August2015>.10.2307/1326539 ↗
2. Thompson & Norris Co., The American Stationer 78(7): 4(1915).
3. Corrugated Fibre Company Official News, Fibre Containers 2(1): 15(1917).
4. The Fibre Box Association, The Corrugated Common Foot Print, Fibre Box Association, Elk Grove Village, IL, USA. Available [Online] http://www.fibrebox.org/Info/CCF.aspx <23May2015>.
5. Malcolmson, J.D., Chem. Age 28(9): 321(1920).10.1086/437199 ↗
6. Malcolmson, J.D., Fibre Containers 21: 14(1936).10.1111/j.1468-229X.1936.tb00677.x ↗
7. Little, J.R., Paper Trade J.: Tappi S. 116(24): 275(1943).
8. McKee, R.C., Gander, J.W., and Wachuta, J.R., Paperboard Packag. 48(8): 149(1963).
9. Frank, B., Packag. Technol. Sci. 27(2): 105(2014).10.1002/pts.2019 ↗
10. Urbanik, T.J. and Frank, B., Wood Fiber Sci. 38(3): 399(2006).
11. Urbanik, T.J., AMD-Vol. 221/MD-Vol. 77, Mechanics of Cellulosic Materials, ASME, 77: 93(1997).
12. Heimerl, G. J., “Determination of plate compressive strengths,”National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Technical Note 1480, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, DC, 1947.
13. Baum, G.A., Brennan, D.C., and Habeger, C.C. Tappi J. 64(8): 97(1981)
14. Popil, R.E., Coffin, D.W., and Habeger, C.C., Appita J. 61(4): 307(2008).
15. Batelka, J.J. and Smith, C.N., “Package compression model,” Final report to the Containerboard and Kraft Paper Group of American Forest & Paper Association, Project 3746, American Forest & Paper Association, Washington, DC, 15 February 1993.
16. Carlson, D.A., Corrugated Int. 4(2): 7(2002).
17. Urbanik, T.J., “Review of buckling mode and geometry effects on postbuckling strength of corrugated containers,” Development, Validation, and Application of Inelastic Methods for Structural Analysis and Design, ASME, PVP 343: 85(1996).10.1115/IMECE1996-0563 ↗
18. Peterson, W.S. and Schimmelpfenning, W.J., Tappi 65(8):108(1982).
19. Renman, M., Exp. Mech. 36(3): 262(1996).10.1007/BF02318017 ↗
20. Chalmers, I.R., Appita J. 60(5): 357(2007).10.3917/rhs.602.0357 ↗
21. Frank, B., Corrugated Int. 9(2): 7(2007).
22. Popil, R.E., BioResources 7(2): 2553(2012).10.15376/biores.7.2.2553-2581 ↗
23. American Paper Products Company, advertisement, The Egg Reporter 17(7): 40(1911).